Posted on 05/22/2021 3:28:16 PM PDT by Jacquerie
And then we let them bring in their relatives via chain migration. The entire country is going to be one big LA.
see tagline
No, the Bush I administration changed immigration the most.
His administration started all the foreign worker visa programs.
It has destroyed the American middle class.
15-20 years ago you’d have been shouted down on this very forum for lamenting the loss of white America
You might have been zotted
High five
Rare is a poster here who doesn’t ape talk radios insane adulation of the civil rights acts and how the vaunted GOPe was instrumental, in getting them passéd
Dixiecrats evil.....they opposed them
Talk radio preaches this nonsense constantly ....Hannity and Beck and Rush wannabes worst offenders.....Mark Simone ...and that idio Mark Herman.....I can only tolerate Chris Plante
So did Ronald Reagan and Goldwater and Buckley ....opposed the acts and mlk national holiday
For good damn reason
Thank u for being here
Pelham...another fellow traveler
No doubt, but the great lie, that rat immigration policies were not designed to corrupt the civil American society, began in 1965.
Today, every once in a while, a media tool sneers that was the goal all along.
It was obvious and generations of Republicans went along.
And then we let them bring in their relatives via chain migration. The entire country is going to be one big LA.
—————————
Or worse, Mumbai (see King County, Washington; Bentonville, Arkansas; Austin, Texas or anywhere else big tech is located at)
“1965 will be known in history as the beginning of the decline of American capitalism. Count in the Civil rights act and the beginning of the welfare state. Johnson’s great society, IMHO, was the beginning of the end!”
Absolutely. And the Immigration Act of 1964 as well. Passed with the help of Dirksen moderates and Rockefeller liberals. The small number of conservatives in both parties opposed it. Prominent GOP opponents included Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley.
It’s Harry Jaffa fans who dominate conservative media today, whether they know his name or not. What they conserve appears to be the legacy of Lyndon Johnson liberalism, believing it’s “conservatism”.
“I hope Ted is nice and toasty, wherever he is.”
The immigration bill was actually JFK’s doing. It was based on his 1958 book “A Nation of Immigrants”. Teddy just carried it in the Senate.
John Kennedy probably didn’t write the book any more than he wrote “Profiles in Courage” (Ted Sorensen) but he certainly endorsed it.
I suddenly want to have a holiday in Cambodia in a police truck. Don't forget your rice.
Citing songs from the “Dead Kennedys” punk rock group from days of yore for you yorer people. No one knew Lawrence Welk had a tongue stud which explained his weird diction. “An uh now some vunderful champaign muh-usic from the Plasmatics.”
First, because they didn't have the numbers in Congress to stop LBJ. Run a search on the partisan makeup on Congress in that era. Only by teaming with southern Democrats could the Republicans have an impact.
Second, Goldwater's defeat was the repudiation of everything he stood for. Only when the country hit rock bottom, crashed through that bottom, and found a whole new bottom in 1980 did the political calculus change. Johnson's victory gave him the opportunity to turn the country left. His goal was to be remembered as the second FDR. The country, thanks to the Mainstream Media, bought everything he was pushing.
But I'm just a nut fallen off the tree (wnk).
“So who DID write “A Nation of Immigrants”?
JFK or one of his confidants. Either way it reflected his own opinions. This was when he was Senator.
“Why did the GOP of the mid 1960’s roll over and play dead?”
Because unlike the clueless claims of talk radio the 1960s GOP was far from conservative. It was dominated by Dirksen moderates and Rockefeller liberals. That’s the group who helped Lyndon Johnson pass his nation-altering Immigration Act and Civil Rights bill.
They despised Goldwater conservatives and some openly supported Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. California’s Thomas Kuchel being a prime example.
Yet kneepad Freepers scream Mark Levin or VDH or Glenn Beck with Shea stadium Beatles 1965 tour erotic ecstasy
Oh my who replaced Rush....why that’ll fix it..
I can stomach Chris Plant
But beyond Bannon I just don’t give a shit....most are neocons or scoop Jackson Dems anyhow ...despite their crowing
If u love MLK and the civil rights legislation
You’re no conservative
Sorry for butting in, but this is a very intersting debate, indeed.
However, I have never heard of an Immigration Act of 1964 - or could this have been the abrogation of the “bracero program”, which indeed happened in 1964?
Sorry about this question; absolutely no slight intended, but I’m afraid I might have understood you incorrectly.
Blame it on my slow-wittedness and lack of erudition...
:-(
Concerning the matter of the book “A Nation of Immigrants”, my guess (and it’s only a guess, mind you) would be that parts of that book (perhaps its core premises) were indeed penned by JF Kennedy personally, while other passages might have been ghostwritten by one or more unknown authors.
Just as it had been the case with the published version of his work “Why England slept” from the year 1940.
I was off by a year, it was actually the “Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965” aka the Hart–Celler Act.
It dramatically altered immigration flows and is the reason that the demographics of this country have changed radically since the time when Boomers were teenagers.
Before Hart-Cellar America was essentially 90% white European and 10% black. Every other racial group was too small to make any impact.
The Bracero program did come to an end in 1964 but that was unrelated to the Immigration Act of 1965.
Ted Sorenson was Kennedy’s speechwriter and the ghostwriter of JFK’s more famous book “Profiles in Courage”. Sorenson may well have written the immigration book, too. In cases like that the official “author” usually tells the ghostwriter what he wants to say, guides the writing and has to approve it. Writing is time intensive and requires skill that amateurs often lack. Winston Churchill wrote his own books but not many others of his station try it.
Oh. I see. Yes, it had indeed been enacted in 1965.
But was it not (famous immigration historian) Roger Daniels in his seminal work “Coming to America”, who called the Hart-Celler Act “the law of unintended consequences”?
IIRC, it had been maintained - amongst other things - by the lawmakers that America’s ethnic mix would not be upset.
It was maintained that the immigration flow to the USA would become just slightly bigger, as well as just slightly more diverse. “Just slightly” being the key phrase here.
If this prediction had become true, we wouldn’t be having this problem in America now, I bet.
We have seen that one of the two momentous changes in the 1965 law was the abolition of the national quotas, which had been first enacted in the 1920s, and later been maintained by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the McCarran-Walter Act.
However, the Hart-Celler Act not just did away with the quotas, but also drastically shifted the “immigrant preference system” inherent in the 1952 act:
- the 1952 Act had given priority to skilled immigrants, for whom 50% of all immigrant visa were reserved;
- the 1965 Act massively shifted the preference towards relatives of US citizens and (to a lesser extent) legal permanent residents, for whom no less than 80% of all immigrant visa were reserved.
And this does not even account for spouses, children and (since 1965) parents of US citizens, who were admittable outside of any quota limit (!)
I am nothing more than a maverick in the field of American immigration history, but still I have asked myself whether the shift away from skill-based immigration might not have been the more deleterious of the two “sea changes” which the 1965 brought about...:-(
Oh, I forgot about the third one: the general increase in the number of immigrants due to a generally higher number of immigrant visas, as well as a larger number of nonquota immigrant groups (like the aforementioned parents).
What if the reformers had been more farsighted?
What if the 1965 act had not been enacted, or, at the very least, been crafted far more cautiously, along the lines of Pres. Eisenhower’s proposals in 1953 and 1957 (in his messages to Congress)?
We can only wonder, but I have a gut feeling that it would have been much better for the American nation.
So much trouble and sorrow could have been avoided, I believe...and the worst was the ideology of multiculturalism which came along later, unfolding its full destructive potential.
The late Lawrence Auster’s (yes, he was a controversial author, but I must admit to holding him in the highest esteem for his great erudition) essay “The Path to National Suicide” still makes for insightful reading on this topic.
One could hardly believe that it has been penned 31 years ago, so little has changed.
I cannot recommend it too much.
What you write is correct but I don’t think that the results of Hart-Celler were unintended. They fit the ideology of the staffer who wrote it. Chase down his name and you will find a story.
All that Ted Kennedy did is carry the bill, he was too lazy and drunk to pay attention and probably wouldn’t have cared anyway. The rest of Congress took the claims about the bill at face value and didn’t examine it. If there was any real opposition to the bill I don’t remember hearing of it.
Larry Auster was brilliant. And like the VDare crowd he was banned here. So it was difficult to take on the open borders Bush fools and alert people about what immigration is doing to the country. Here in California we were at ground zero for the massive demographic change that is now hitting the rest of the country. We are probably beyond the tipping point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.